User talk:Jaakobou/Archive 2

RolandR AV/I case
issued to User:SFC9394: i request you don't become an inadvertant accomplice to RolandR's malicious activity by presuming the location of his comments to be the correct one. he has ignored the notice issued under the text (relating to the personal attack on me) and created a seperate out of chronological order complaint to make his complaint be "first" on the read list. however, the history of the page indicates that i reported a personal attack on me and afterwards rolandR has posted his vandalism complaint above the section dealing with the issue. Jaakobou 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RolandR AV/I case
I am not really fussed about whatever the dispute is about - all I am simply saying is don't delete other peoples comments when you are involved in a dispute with them. That is very bad form - please don't do it. SFC9394 13:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Do not refactor ANI
(edit conflict):You recently moved a comment made by another editor in the ANI report that the two of you are involved in. You are not to alter others comments. In this case, as you are an involved party, it is especially important that you do not even move other's comments to where you feel they are more appropriate. &mdash; User: (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User: (talk and SFC9394. i did 'not delete or edit any comments.. only moved a misplaced comment to the proper chronological order since the other user has placed his "vandalism report" above my previous complaint for personal attacks. however, i agree that i should not move other user's comments which means i will only place links to my comments in the proper chonology. on a jokingly side (i hope you can take it on a lighter spirit side despite the heated situation) i was moving my own comments above rolandR's comments and not moving his comments down. on the serious side, user RolandR has removed the personal attack warning i issued on his user talk page. Jaakobou 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said, you "moved" a comment. "Edit" covers moving comments as the context is changed. As you are a party to the complaint, you should let others handle any issues with respect to the out of mis-ordered comments. Let other editors make their own mistakes.  If you disagree with where someone else puts the comment, make note of the placement; but, don't move it. In addition, as the editor's original comment that you moved was not in response to the subject line below it, in my opinion, it was in the proper location as a response to the comments above it.  I recommend that you let the case speak for itself, rather than escalating it further by making the ANI itself an issue.   You have been asked very nicely not to edit other's comments in the ANI case.  If you do this again, you are subject to being blocked.  &mdash; User: (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i've managed to resolve the situation in a better way thank you. Jaakobou 14:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for stepping back and agreeing to leave the other's edits alone. Working this issue with civility is appreciated.  &mdash; User: (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i do try to resolve disputes, this one though is a unique and very much problematic case. you're more than invited to see the entire thread and weigh in on it. Jaakobou 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
As there seems to be a long standing conflict described in the ANI case above, I want to be sure that you are aware of the dispute resolution process. It seems not to be single incident, but a long string of incidents. &mdash; User: (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * User:, thank you for the link - i've went over it for a bit, but i think i could use an outsider's opinion with some advice on the next step i should persue to resolve this long standing incident. I'd be appreciative if you help me out with moving this thing foreward. Jaakobou 10:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the situation still needs outside intervention, then step through the dispute resolution process . I'm guessing that you are at the "Further dispute resolution" stage (Have you tried Request for comment, informal mediation via the Mediation Cabal, or formal mediation through a Request for mediation?) I recommend that you read up on each process, decide where you feel you are in the dispute resolution process and what step you want to take next; further, no matter where you are in the process, taking a breather when things heat up is usually helpful to keep things from getting out of hand.  If you choose to move forward, it is helpful to all involved if you document what dispute resolution steps you have already taken.  &mdash; User: (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you feel you would like a neutral party to help you with process, consider Requesting an advocate, as indicated on the dispute resolution page. &mdash; User: (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ANI discussion
I have closed the ANI discussion because it's ceased to be productive. That said, your constant accusations of personal attacks against RolandR and others are getting disruptive, and I suggest you stop. – Steel 12:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't think you have any right to close that case - and i'm reopening it. Jaakobou 12:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you. We've been patient enough. – Steel 12:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) i think you've been most uncivil with your entire approach. per: "I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative."
 * 2) i think this block is unjustified as i've both managed to solve the previous "moving comments issue" and a single revert might constituate a warning - but not a block.
 * 3) i've happened to miss your comment for the reasoning for the archivingl - you could have stated that a reasoning is on the page - or give me a reasoning beyond "it's ceased to be productive"... i'm not quite sure who are the "others" - ChrisO? we've solved our differences on good terms last i checked.
 * 4) besides your approach, I also think that the conduct of User:Kingboyk by replying "enough allready"  and removing my question from his talk page  and then claiming to have explained it to me allready (since when "enough allready" is an explanation?)
 * We don't need to see the diffs again. You're such a victim aren't you? "Enough already" is a perfectly adequate explanation. It means, you're exhausting the community's patience by constantly complaining. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

the entire handling with this ban and where you don't show even a sense of civility/AGF is very much disheartening. Jaakobou 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Use unblock if you wish to request an unblock. --kingboyk 14:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that my revert was a mistake (on the archiving). Sorry about that, you have my word I won't do it again. please unblock. while I believe my accusations were definitely warranted, apparently opinions differ so i think it will be helpful to refrain from such accusations in the future. Regardless of whether or not they're warranted. Jaakobou 15:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very positive response, thank you. I'll ask the blocking admin what he thinks. --kingboyk 15:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been unblocked :) Please keep the promises you made. Cheers! --kingboyk 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you, autoblock still on. Jaakobou 16:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, looking into it. --kingboyk 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Should be removed. If it isn't, please use the unblock template as somebody with more technical knowledge will have to look into it. --kingboyk 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Language tags
rmd 13:01, 10 September 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

there seems to be a problem with the language tags for hebrew and arabic and i couldn't quite find how to fix the issue.


 * english tag: English
 * hebrew tag: Hebrew
 * arabic tag: Arabic

i hope it's clear that they are not the same. Jaakobou 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? What, the articles on the other wikis? If that, it's English language (English language), אנגלית (אנגלית), and العربية (العربية) (for the sake of an example, I have used English, which I am pretty sure has an article in pretty much every language). Hopefully this helps; if it doesn't, feel free to re-add the template.:) Qwerty (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it also be this?, and  ? --Qwerty (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User page
rmd 13:02, 10 September 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have redirected your user page to your talk page so that people can access it by clicking on your signature (otherwise it is just an annoying link to "Edit article"). Hope you don't mind. Number  5  7  17:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * a little bold, but i'm ok with it. Jaakobou 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You should get some userboxes - they're fun! Number   5  7  17:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Azmi Bishara
rmd 07:49, 22 May 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Itayb 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk page. Itayb 17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied on my talk page. Itayb 18:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JDL
rmd 13:03, 10 September 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your concerns about libel, I don't think they apply here. The article is appropriately worded to attribute the view that the JDL is a terrorist organization to reliable, verfiable sources that made that assessment within the last 10 years. Everything in the article talks about the FBI or other law enforcement-affiliated groups labeling JDL as terrorist or specifically sourced assertions regarding particular incidents or prosecutions involving group members. Mike Dillon 14:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * note the difference between "designated terrorist" and "designated extremist" the records seem to be "designated terrorist in 1980s" (single bombing, no injured in 1983) and currently "designated extremist".. i personally think you should remove the current designation and make the change until we find a more solid statement - personally i suggested they contact the FBI (me being in Israel would make for a large cost) to help them find a proper citation to solidify the designation in either direction. Jaakobou 17:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI
rmd 13:04, 10 September 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence#Use_of_questionalble_and_unreliable_sources_-_prefering_only_his_own_POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq-Zero0000/Evidence&diff=next&oldid=124522872 Zeq 03:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image Delete
rmd 13:25, 29 October 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

i couldn't quite make out why the image of Aliza Olmert was deleted, sorry if this is not the correct way to inquire about it. Jaakobou 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is because the uploader of the image didn't specify the copyright details, nor any information about the image, thus the image was deleted. Curran (talk)  15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be a mistake, i seem to remember to have placed some info about the image. Jaakobou 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Sometimes that (annoying, but don't tell it) bot deletes things that don't belong in the garbage. Try re-uploading it and adding correct details. Whether this will work-- I dunno? Might be worth a try. Curran  (talk)  15:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere a notice that deletions can be reverted without reuploading (an old upload of mine)- whoever, i cannot see the deletion history so i wouldn't know who to contact. Jaakobou 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there are any bots that actually delete things, they just tag them for admins to delete. You could look at Special:Log/delete to see who deleted the image and ask them to restore it. Just enter the image name into the "Title" box. If you don't remember the exact image name, you can look at [ your upload log]. Mike Dillon 22:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Azmi Bishara2006.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Y not? 23:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please self-revert Battle of Jenin
rmd 00:20, 7 November 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please self-revert at. The original of this article in Hebrew is at of the Yediot Aharonot article on May 31, 2002. Gush-shalom provide a translation at. While Gush Shalom is a campaigning web-site, it is not a blog, and would normally be considered a Reliable Source in its own right. It is certainly an RS for translation purposes. PalestineRemembered 08:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * the hebrew version might be an accurate copy of the ynet article, however, the english one is full of defamation and one sided "the truth!!!" style bloggish narratives that are not by any means accurate or encyclopedic. if you want, we can include some gush shalom refrence to the ynet article, but you must find the ynet article, and you must find a gush shalom article that doesn't plagerize(sp?) from ynet. you should also find a way to write things without copy-pasting. Jaakobou 09:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Students
rmd 00:21, 7 November 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jaakobou! Why not write about the Students.  ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article: Ex-Islamists
rmd 00:22, 7 November 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You recently created the article Ex-Islamists, however it seems from the text of the article that you meant for the creation to be a category (maybe Category:Ex-Islamists). If this is the case, and the article was mistakingly created, you should probably add to the article so it can be removed. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * fixed, thank you. Jaakobou 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed Walid Shoebat from this category as he was formerly a secular Palestinian nationalist (PLO) not an Islamist. I now believe the category itself was misnamed, and suggest it should be renamed to Category:Former Islamist and/or Arab terrorists. --GCarty 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, while the PLO is "secular", they are anything but secular.. they are simply not as ultra-orthodox as some of the others, shoebat was educated in Ilsmic ways and there's plenty of information about that; there's nothing wrong with the current title of the category. Jaakobou 07:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The PLO's ideology was similar to Nasserism or Ba'athism. Did Nasser's Egypt or Saddam's Iraq use Shari'ah law?  (Clue: Islamist = supporter of Shari'ah law). --GCarty 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * if you quote the quran while trying to kill jews and then change your mind and attack this ideaology... you qualify as ex-islamist. the comparisment to saddam is irrelevant. islamism, is not only about sharia law, it's also about dar al-harb and "resistance" jihad martyrdom concepts. Jaakobou 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

talk:Jerusalem
I wrote what I did on the talk page because I didn't want your words to provoke an argument with our visitor "friends" that could only cause harm to the article in the end. nadav (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Do you mind if I remove your last comment? I really don't want them to be pulled into starting an unfruitful argument. I think the best policy is to ignore any incoherent or unenlightening comments by IP editors. nadav (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't think most of them are intelligent enough to make an argument... if they try, they might end up learning something and it would actually make them better people. thanks for your concern though. Jaakobou 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Peasants in Ramallah
rmd 07:34, 1 July 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

helpme

i wish to replace this wikipedia commons image: with the newly uploaded improved version of that same image:

i don't quite know on how to make the operation automatic and the image has been used on a number of places:

thanks in advance. Jaakobou 04:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I left you a message at commons:User talk:Jaakobou.  W ODU P  05:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good find, well done!!! -- Avi 14:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this solves all our problems surrounding the image, and makes it look much nicer. nadav (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Help with Yhoshua Leib Gould article
Hey, there are some of the usual suspects trying to whitewash an article about a Neturei KArta guy. Can you please help out? Yoel23 13:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Faith Issues -- Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
User:Liftarn, It's beggining to feel that good faith is under suspiscion in regards to your edits on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacksHistory. I'm making this note due to a few edits which seem to censor information from the article - such as: - this edit btw destroyed refrence no. 11.
 * this edit: explained as "I think the caption got mixed up." in which you (i)remove the name of the woman on tape and both the (ii)ref and info to on her beying quoted as cursing the USA and (iii)the link to the criticism.
 * this editrepeated here in which you attach the hosting webdomain name (freedomdomain.com) as the "reporting body" in what might be an interpreted as an attempt to discredit the actual reporting body of the refrence, i.e. Times Newspapers.

While i try to assume good faith, and i havn't objected to this edit in which you discredit sources by noting they are on a "personal website". there is a fine line where i'm loosing faith due to promotion of dubious unrefrenced notes and making page moves while claiming there was a "Propaganda" or "Fraud" where it might seem to suit a possible agenda and censor-reverting and tagging refrences as "propaganda links" where it doesn't.

please note!

please remember to maintain WP:NEU in future edits to this article so that good faith suspiscions won't turn into allegations of WP:TEND and contribute to unnessesary soapbox situations and/or edit warring where you "discredit" a source and another contributor might "NPOV the situation" by "discrediting" another source. Jaakobou 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that the name of the woman? Ok, I just noticed that the caption had changed and changed it back.
 * Btw, are Youtube videos useable as sources?
 * Unless we fins the actual Times article it is no more reliable than any personal webpage and should be reported as such. How do we know it is an accurate description of the original article?
 * The text was copied directly from the Westboro Baptist Church article (or thereabouts). Now I only found a passing reference in Targets of Westboro Baptist Church. A quick googling found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926 Just look at the signs saying "THANK GOD FOR Sept. 11". And in other media.
 * Yes, propaganda and fraud. Fake (fraud) celebrations being brodcast as propaganda.
 * I removed the links that was already used as sourced and those with an obvious bias. Then there was no links left.
 * // Liftarn


 * i see no problem with an article about the Westboro celebrations, i don't think they are worth much more than a "see also" in regards to this article which is heavily dedicated to palestinian celebrations.
 * i don't know if you're aware on how the international media buissness works if you call the usage of these images "propaganda".. they were not propagated by israel, but AP - an agency blamed many times for being a tool in the hands of terrorists who threaten the lives of it's reporters so they comply on many occassions to make a buck and were heavily under fire for proven photoshopped images and arranged scenes... the life of a photojournalist is about as vicious as the one of the paparatzi(sp?) if not more (you know, photography under fire and such) and to be honest, i think -- knowing pictures of celebrating palestinians were taken not only in israel (and west bank) but also in lebanon and that perceptions in the arab world about the US cultivate this behaviour (to some extent) -- that the handing out of candy is more probably part of the cultural ceremony rather than an induced staging... although, i'm not intending to add such POV into the article.
 * these video links i provided are based on the only current sources availabe for these newscasts, luckily for us they seem to be at full length and unedited. sadly we have no better source (yet) and it's here for obvious encyclopedic reasons. if you can come up with better refrences to the video that would be great.
 * for the same reason, we have no reason to suspect that the Times article is distorted.. similarly, the der spiegel source was allowed also when we have no availability of the actual full article. i believe there really shouldn't be any contention at the moment that the refrences are of shoddy reliability... i do think there is room to find better links for all the articles mentioned in the Tripod page.. that one bothers me a little, but it's there because we have no reason to believe the articles were falsified and also for encyclopedic value which is IMHO the most important part of our contributions here at wikipedia. Jaakobou 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Cool beans. Screen stalker 14:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mass demolitions in the Negev.
I'll try not to wantonly trigger these breaches of Wikipedia civility with anything I can't prove. It was Israel's minister of interior Roni Bar-On who announced in Dec 2006 that he will destroy 42,000 homes of 2nd-class Israeli citizens in the Negev. Well, unless you're going to tell me that Israelis lie, of course. PalestineRemembered 17:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) note the article (from January 10, 2007) uses the words "42,000 illegal structures in the Israeli Negev.", your statement is misleading at best.
 * (2) note that the article by the "israeli committee" asks the question: "When will Israel create options for 80,000...", accusing israel for not creating options. which is, at best a white lie and at worst a blatant POV pushing. see these articles to note that "israelis can lie" *shrug*:


 * The government discussed setting up two permanent communities for the Bedouins (note the misleading title) (2006)
 * YNET Hebrew article, mentions presented option, rejected by WAdi A-Naam, to be settled at [].


 * as you can see, a few options are presented and discussed, the people in the Ynet article had a reasonable reason.. they say that the southern part of that town is close (10Km) to a waste dump and they are worried it is dangerous.


 * regardless, the article also notes that in 2003, Ariel Sharon made a plan allocated 9.8 Billion NIS in a span of 10 years to upgrade and recognize 8 places of beduin concentrations and upgrade them in a manner that fits the beduin lifestyle.


 * User:PalestineRemembered, if you're not very knowledgeable about a certain issue and you have certain worries because of materials you've read (selectively in this case). it would be best to look for less politically motivated organizations to fact check your assumptions and avoid uncomfortable allegations of libel. Jaakobou 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can find you supporters of Mugabe attempting to justify his mass demolitions. I know the excuse he made was "slum clearance", but I don't think anyone (other than people enjoying his hospitality) ever accepted what he claimed, or thought his behaviour anything other than criminal. PalestineRemembered 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:PalestineRemembered, so now you're planning on comparing between two situations you havn't explored seriously? .. don't you think you're stretching out a bit too far with this soapbox?? i don't know much about zim, but last i checked the life expectancy was 37!... not really a place that should be compared with israel. Jaakobou 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My humble apologies. It would be quite wrong of me to compare House demolition in Zimbabwe for slum clearance purposes with house demolition elsewhere for ethnic cleansing. People might think I deplored what Mugabe is doing and was soap-boxing against him. PalestineRemembered 12:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition
I was wondering about why you changed your mind about whether the Israel Palestine stuff should be on its own article or moved back into the main one. You don't have to answer if you don't want to. nadav (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i'm a bit ambivalent about it, but i don't remember changing my mind. *scratches head*
 * could you please link me to this change? Jaakobou 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Here's what I was thinking about: nadav (talk) 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * lol, caught flipfloping. well, at first i thought the article deserves it's own article, but later i read the comment by Gabi S. on the AfD page and figured he had a point and that not only that this makes for a perfect POV pushing situation and considering there's no similar expantion on other countries/conflicts and that many of the words were repetative. plus it caused many unnessecary and time cunsuming edit warrings for the project. i'm still a bit ambivalent and figure there is room for such an article in the future of the project, but for the moment - i think that a Redirect, it the best solution. Jaakobou 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. (obviously, I have counterpoints, but you've cleared up my question) Best, nadav (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

direction of text
helpme

i need the wikicode for making a text appear from right to left. Jaakobou 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can use the rtl-para tag. Example:, which prints


 * nadav (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * thank you, i allready found which makes for a better font, but the formatting did not look very nice, so i settled with your suggestion. thanks again. Jaakobou 13:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. pun intended.

Allahdad incident
Hi, I removed those categories since i made a top category Category:Crypto-Judaism which is now a sub-category of those categories. Misheu 05:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew for Lion
rmd 18:41, 7 November 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able put the hebrew characters for Lion on the Lion etymology section. Would be much appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
The consensus from the discussion was that the source of Image:PalestinianWoman.jpg was not reliable per the nominator's reason for deletion.

I agreed with Quadell (talk) that having two fair use images in the short article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks violates WP:NFCC #3a against minimal use. After reading and Fair_use_review, I felt the consensus on that issue was to use Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg in the article. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I reread the discussion and still believe the consensus is that the sourcing is not reliable and the image has other fair use issues. If you wish to have this decision looked at again, please request a deletion review. If my decision to delete is overturned, then those editors interested in the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article can figure out which image is best to use - Regards -Nv8200p talk 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can try re-uploading the image and summarizing the new info you have and see if it passes the community's scrutiny. You need to document on the image talk page your rationale for re-uploading a deleted image or it will probably be immediately deleted. You can pursue getting permissions from AP for the image too if that id the copyright holder. Start a discussion on the article talk page aboput the images and see wha the consensus is. Good luck. -Nv8200p talk 14:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jenin
Hi, if there are any specific points of the text that need translation, I would be glad to help. Danny 09:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Accurate bible translations
Hi and thanks for your note on my page. There's not really a problem. We're talking about the aerticle Bethel, and the website to link to for the various bible verses mentioned there. I had links to a site run by the Uni of Virgina which gave whole chapters from a single translation (the NIV I think), Sarek changed it to a site that gave only single verses but a wide choice of translations. I reverted because I felt (a) that whole chapters are more useful because the reader can see the verse in context, an (b) that many of the translations in his site are untrustworthy (e.g. the King James - great poetry but a bit outdated); he then pointed out that (a) the verses on his siet are easily linked to the relevant chapters, and (b) my site wasn't available any more. I regarded that point as being a bit of a clincher. Have a look at the Bethel article. PiCo 01:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Netzarim
rmd 08:57, 8 August 2007.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Shuki 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * i find this warning somewhat misplaced considering (1) this is an edit dispute between the two of us and (2) i take the time to explain my edits.both incidents occured at netzarim., rv, yes i know: it's the nearby junc. and the place for the netzarim outpost. map link... and (3) i havn't been close to breaking the 3RR in this dispute, not even by accident.
 * feel free to tone the level of conversation down a notch and remove this 3rd degree warning along with my reply.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not. You did break the 3RR and your attempted explanations are limited to cryptic edit summaries as opposed to discussion on the talk page. You last explanation included a map of Gaza(!), not the specific area of Netzarim or the junction which you have not even attempted to relate how close to Netzarim or not. I know where Netzarim is/was, trust me. The main reason I first and then continued to undo your additions was because you fail(ed) to even add to the article the relevancy of the links you added. If there is a proper attempt to make that effort (still not lost), maybe the Dura link could stay, but the Pallywood is related to the Dura article, definitely not Netzarim. --Shuki 18:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * if you think i broke the WP:3RR, feel free to report it, i know for a fact that i have not.
 * as for the rest of the talk, feel free to bring it up at the proper location - the article's talk page.
 * last note: try to remain civil when in content dispute, expressions such as "have not even attempted" do not contribute to fixing the issue of your displeasure of the provided explanation i.e. it's the nearby junc. and the place for the netzarim outpost. map link: . notice that netzarim is on the map.
 * --  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  19:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see this is going nowhere. I also love when the accusations of 'civil' get thrown out... BTW, edit summaries are 'edit summaries', you posted a URL. And wow, Netzarim on a map of Gaza, again. So what? Did you even read my reply? I know where Netzarim is and for that sake, I know many people that lived there too. What does that map prove? There are already other maps of Gaza on WP. Do you know where this Netzarim junction is in relation to the village? Do you plan on adding anything to the article to relate to this ex-link you've posted?
 * I apologize for accusing you of the 3RR in the previous post, 'that' was a mistake. The template was a warning. --Shuki 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * if you feel an addition by another editor needs expansion, you can either make that expansion or ask the editor to fill that in also. the removal of content seemed incorrect to me.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I've seen that defense before. Make a simple addition and then expect someone else to fill in the blanks. In any case, your latest edit is completely legitimate and welcomed (like your many other contributions that I appreciate), and since it is discussed in the body of the article, frankly removes the need for the indirectly related 'see also' which does not exist to be an additional section for wikilinks already in the article. --Shuki 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure about that justification, you can test it out on articles such as Pallywood to see how the consensus works out. anyways, while i believe it has room on the "see also" subsection (as suggested reading) i don't quite think it should be an issue of dispute... may i ask, what is your incentive for removal of these links from the article?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. please keep the rest of the talk on the proper talk page.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Offensive post in Jenin talk page
Do not accuse me of "not caring" about the victims of bombings in Israel. I do not take that view and nor has anything I have said or any edits I have made even suggested that I do. Also please don't claim that you speak for the general public and the average wikipedia editor, as it makes you look rather foolish. You might also want to stop lazily pretending that all the people killed in Jenin were militants. --Nickhh 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * calling me foolish somewhat defeats the porpoise of this note of yours. regardless, you have little room to attack me after you've just insulted me and i simply noted this fact to you.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Help
i really need a guide on when it's good to use the template.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Try looking here I spose - Sorry I couldant be more help Tiddly Tom 21:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Please undo this edit if you require further assistance. Tiddly Tom 21:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no consistency across WP when it comes to using templates for quotations. There are cquote, quote, blockquote, quotation, etc. I am not sure Category:Quotation templates lists all of them. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hebron
Jaakobou, You are over the three-revert limit on this page. Please self-revert now, or I will report you. CJCurrie 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * User:CJCurrie, i'm not over the limit, but thank you for the heads-up.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you *are* over the limit:, , , , . Please revert yourself now.  CJCurrie 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * if you think i broke the WP:3RR, feel free to report it, i know for a fact that i have not.
 * try to remain WP:CIV, when addressing other wiki editors, bold font could be considered by some people as shouting.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  07:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've made more than five reverts in 24 hours, so I don't see how you couldn't have broken the 3RR. You do realize that the count isn't reset at 00:00, right?  CJCurrie 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you for the update.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)